Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Wyank

Xbox 720 Going Outside The TV

12 posts in this topic

That Linkity Link

On Sunday Patently Apple detailed a Microsoft patent just recently published by the US Trademark and Patent Office that describes technology that would transform your entire living room into a game environment. The patent reads: “An immersive display environment is provided to a human user by projecting a peripheral image onto environmental surfaces around the user. The peripheral images serve as an extension to a primary image displayed on a primary display.”

Put another way: You’re playing a motion-controlled Gears of War. If you scan ahead for enemies, they might be taking cover behind broken walls not just on your TV but maybe to the right on your walls. You might be able to see an attack from the air on your ceiling. A locust soldier could sneak up behind you and you could literally turn around to face them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And that's the definition of too far in my book.

Sounds like a HORRIBLE idea if you ask me. With no way to control or predict the environment the gamer will play in, if you expand the game beyond the screen you potentially create a massive disparity between players. A player in a dark 10x15 windowless home theater would have massive advantage over a player in a 20x35 great-room with a wall of windows and skylights.

I can see it now. Along with ESRB ratings the games will come with environmental requirements - AR - Suitable for all rooms; MLG- Game only playable in rooms specifically designed for XBox gaming.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I'm not sure how I would like this either. Probably would be better just to develop a cheap good VR headset that works with the Xbox 720 instead for those that would even want that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah this is the first thing that came to my mind.

My Xbox is in my bedroom and I have very dark blue walls. Nothing is going to project onto those very well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

probably just patent trolling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I'm not sure how I would like this either. Probably would be better just to develop a cheap good VR headset that works with the Xbox 720 instead for those that would even want that.

Many years ago I ended up with one of those (at the time) bad ass VR rigs. Helmet that tracked head movement and managed to render 1024x786, flight stick in the right hand - throttle control in the left, and foot petals for rudder controls. I was unkillable in Mechwarrior and a game called Descent.

The problem was that it caused the most unbearable splitting headaches after about 2 hours of play. Something to do with the need to interlace the images to create a seamless image at that short of a viewing distance. With the two screens (one for each eye) only being 2 or 3 inches from your face they had to work some weird scheme where the right eye only saw the odd lines and the left eye the even ones and left it to your brain to stitch it all together. The result was it looked great but it was like wearing glasses that were the wrong prescription.

Its my understanding that they have not overcome that hurdle yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Descent was awesome and I can only imagine how playing it with that rig made it even more so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like Microsoft is trying to patent LLLLLSSSSSSDDDDDDDDD

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



  • Posts

    • Mitchell would be a mistake IMO. He's too short to play with Walker. It would be the NBA's smallest backcourt. 
    • Look at this from Greg's viewpoint: 1. We did not draft or bring in a TE (many of us, including me, thought the team might bring in a young TE) Greg knows we have few options at this point. 2. Greg is about to retire (2-3 years) and his stock will never be higher.  He has led the team in receiving for a few years. 3. He knows there is cap room.  Gettlemen wants to carry  that over to re-sign 3 hog mollies for 2018; Olsen wants it now.) I think the Panthers lack of movement at TE has Olsen in a great negotiating position. Now let's take a look at the Panther's position: His quote about business and productivity could backfire on him. Businesses sign contracts for future services.  People sign them every day and honor them.  I may sign a long-term contract for less than I am worth, but in turn, I get security.  If you think you are worth more, don't sign.  I think the problem is the transparency over salaries.  If you know what Jacob Tamme made last year because his agent worked out a great deal, you can use that to negotiate a new deal for Olsen if you compare the numbers.  However, Tamme may have underperformed his deal, and it is erroneous to assume the performance of others based on their contracts is fair market value.  What they offer and what you take is fair market value. If Olsen wants a deal based on his productivity, remove his guaranteed money and make it incentive based. Take away the guarantees and make it possible for him to earn $10m--or $2m, depending on his productivity.  I am sure that he wants the security of the current deal and the Panthers to assume all risk.   Do you think the Raiders did not think that Jamarcus Russell's deal should equal productivity?  It is a gamble for both sides--a 4-5 year contract is security.  Guaranteed money you take for a promise to perform at your highest level for the length of the contract.  Olsen is not giving money back if he has a bad year, I assure you.  Contracts are not rewards, they only concern themselves with the now and the future. So where you ranked last year and the year before that---that simply means the Panthers made a wise investment in Greg Olsen.  I mean, if I invest in Cisco stock, buying it at $40 per share because it is expected to rise to $50 per share and it ends the year at $60, Cisco does not come to me and say, "We should have charged you more when you bought our shares--can we have an additional $8 per share?" THAT is business . Olsen should blame himself if he signed a lower deal than he is worth.  If he did not believe he was worth more then, why should the Panthers pay more now?  The Panthers paid him fair market value and he accepted the offer. I think it is bad practice to start paying people who outperform their contracts